What's up with New Hampshire?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Ah, another "why did McCain much worse than Bush, despite being the more popular/moderate/whatever politician?" thread. I guess it's the same answer as always: It was an election year which favored the Democrats. Especially after the financial crisis started. New Hampshire is a swing state, so it swung to the Democrats. Obama managed to win Ohio, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, so why shouldn't he win the state of New Hampshire in any other way than a landslide?

Aside from that, the effect of the media is way, way overrated most of the time. Would the media be a) as liberal as conservatives like to claim and b) as influential on voting behavior as conservatives like to claim, George W. Bush wouldn't have become president in the first place and he would never have been re-elected in 2004. Not to mention that the Republicans would never have kept control of Congress from 1994 to 2008. Not to mention of the Reagan/Bush Sr. presidencies.

Scientific research has proven half a century ago that readers/viewers/listeners tend to pick media and news products those content is in line with their already existing opinion. And this opinion isn't shaped by the media, but by socialization (your parents and family, your friends and colleagues, your surrounding environment, things you've experienced in your life so far etc.) So, Conservatives opt for right-wing media, liberals go for left-wing media and it's fair to assume that Independent/moderate/undecided voters either take a look at both or try to find news that they deem more or less "fair and balanced" (so, not Fox News... although they could watch both Fox News and MSNBC, for example).